Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is the Senator's life. I don't agree with him, but he must lay out his case.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say to my colleague from Kansas that he ended up talking about the emergency bill that is before us. But a good part of his remarks were devoted to the farm bill, what I call the ``freedom to fail'' bill. I want to say to my colleague from Kansas that he kept talking about the failed policy of the past. I think he ought to focus on the failed policy of the present. The failed policy of the present is the ``freedom to fail'' bill. My colleagues also talked about the painful truth. The painful truth in the State of Minnesota is that we are going to lose yet thousands more of farmers on the present course. We have to change the course. That is the painful truth. I remember that maybe a year and a half ago when I went to a gathering in Crookston, MN in northwest Minnesota, there was a sign outside that said, ``Farm Crisis Meeting.'' I thought: My God, are we going back to the mid-1980s? But it is not only northwest Minnesota. I was in Roseau County two weekends ago. It is pretty incredible. It is the low prices. It is also the weather. The county typically plants about 500,000 acres of wheat. This year only 10 percent--50,000 acres-- was planted. It appears that a mere 10 percent of the 50,000 acres will produce a crop. It is northwest Minnesota with the low price. It is the weather. It is the scab disease, and now the price crisis affects all of Greater Minnesota. When my colleague talks about $136 million spent in Minnesota with the AMTA payments, it reminds me of what farmers always say, not about the smaller banks but about the big branch banks: They are always there with the umbrella when there is sunshine outside, but whenever it is raining they take the umbrella away. Of course, the payments were up when we were doing well. But the whole point of what we had in our farm bill before ``freedom to fail'' was we had some countercyclical measures to make sure there was some price stability. That is the point. The point is that when part of our export market collapses, and when family farmers can't make a go of it, or when you continue to have to deal with conglomerates that control almost all phases of the food industry--when I hear my good friend from Kansas talking about laws of supply and demand, I smile. Family farmers in Minnesota want to know: Where is Adam Smith's invisible hand? Family farmers in the Midwest want to know, where is the competition? Because when they look to whom they buy from, and when they look to whom they sell, they are faced with a few large conglomerates that dominate the market. I say to my good friend from Iowa that in Fayette County--I guess there is a town of Fayette also in northeast Iowa--on Sunday I went to a pig roast. This farmer said: I am out of business. This is the last pig. This is it for me. Our pork producers are facing extinction, and the packers are in hog heaven. We have a frightening concentration of power. All of my colleagues who are strong free enterprise men and women, all my colleagues who talk about the importance of the market and competition, ought to look at what my friend from Kansas talks about as a painful truth, which is we don't have Adam Smith's invisible hand and law of supply and demand. Everywhere we look in this industry, you have conglomerates that have muscled their way to the dinner table, exercising their raw political and economic power over our producers, over consumers, and I also argue over taxpayers. In all due respect, when my friend from Kansas says we ought to look at the failed policies of the past, I want to say that we ought to look at the failed policy of the present. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can talk about anything they want to talk about. All of it is relatively important. Crop insurance is important. We can do better. We can do better in a lot of different areas. But let's not talk about failed policies of the past. Let's talk about the failed policy of the present because that is what farmers are dealing with. Family farmers are going under, and time is not neutral. I want to shout it from the mountain top of the Senate in response to the remarks of my good friend and colleague from Kansas. The most important thing that we can do is rewrite this farm bill. The most important thing we can do is make the kind of structural changes we need to make so that family farmers can get a fair shake because right now what we did in that ``freedom to fail'' bill is take away any opportunity for farmers to have any kind of leverage and bargaining in the marketplace with these large grain companies. And, in addition, we took away any kind of safety net. So when part of the export market isn't there, although we are doing fine and the exporters are doing well, our family farmers aren't. The point is that for those farmers who do not have huge reserves for capital and aren't the conglomerates, they go under. Senators and United States of America, this debate about this emergency package--and more importantly the debate that is going to take place this fall about how we write a farm bill--is a debate that is as important as we can have for anyone who values the family farm structure of agriculture because we will lose it all if we don't change this course of policy.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, actually, I do not know whether it is a jump ball. I will be pleased to go in order, if we could do it that way. I see the Senator from Kansas was ready to speak, and the Senator from North Dakota. Can we alternate from side to side? I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Kansas. I didn't mean to beat him to the punch. I am anxious to debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I clarify this? I had the floor. I was trying to be accommodating.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I simply said, if the Senator felt I jumped in, beat him to the punch, I would be pleased to follow the Senator from Kansas. I am ready to yield, or I will keep the floor. Shall we do that?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend from Iowa. First, I agree it is ironic to hear some of our colleagues try to boast about direct payments to farmers when they talk about the ``freedom to fail'' bill. By definition, if we are spending $17 billion a year for payments to farmers, the market is not doing a very good job. Second, let me say to my colleague from Iowa, when I hear my good friend from Kansas talk about the law of supply and demand, I smile because the family farmers throughout the country want to know where is Adam Smith's invisible hand? Where is the competition? It misses the very essence of our debate. Conglomerates basically control almost all phases of the food industry, whether it is from whom the farmers buy or to whom they sell. There are two questions: No. 1, how can we give family farmers some kind of leverage in the marketplace? We tried to do that in some of our past farm bills through the loan rate, and also a safety net, to try and deal with farmers when prices plummeted. Second is the compelling case for antitrust action. Let me say we are going to pass a bill that will provide some assistance to farmers, but there are two questions: What kind of assistance? I will analyze that in a moment. The challenge before the Senate is the kind of assistance. I think there are pretty huge differences. In our bill, the Democrats bill, we have about $2 billion in assistance for disaster relief. In case anybody hasn't noticed, we have drought in the country. We have people who are devastated, people who cannot grow anything. We have some disaster relief, $2 billion. I don't think our colleagues on the other side have anything in that bill, in which case I say to colleagues when they vote on these amendments, it would seem to me Members would be hard pressed to vote against an amendment purporting to provide emergency disaster relief that doesn't take into account the weather. Not only are my colleagues not taking into account the failed policy of the present, they are not taking into account the drought. My second point: I far prefer, to the extent we can, to make sure the assistance gets to those farmers who need it the most. The AMTA payments tend to go to the larger producers and tend to go to land owners, even if they are not producers. It is quite different than LDP. I would like the LDP targeted, as targeted as possible. There are some differences between these two proposals. The Republican plan is similar to their tax cut plan. They parcel out benefits in inverse relationship to need. What farmers are saying to me in Minnesota or when I was in Iowa this past weekend: Look, we want to get the price. We want to deal with the price crisis. We want to have a future. If you are going to provide some assistance, I didn't hear farmers talking about AMTA payments because they know the great share of the benefits will go to those who need it the least. We have some major differences. We take into account the drought-- small thing, the drought. We make sure there is some direct assistance to people who are confronted with the drought. Our colleagues on the other side don't have such assistance. In addition, we try to target to production as opposed to AMTA payments, which is all a part of the ``freedom to fail'' bill. It was transition for people to go out. AMTA payments were great, as my colleague from Kansas points out, when prices were up. Everybody loved it. The problem is the ``freedom to fail'' bill, which was passed, did not take into account what would happen to family farmers when the markets collapsed, the prices were low, and there was no safety net, no bargaining power and no way that family farmers would be able to cash flow and make a living. There is no future for family farmers in the State of Minnesota with this failed farm policy. I say to my colleagues, we have some votes this afternoon on the whole question of some emergency assistance. That is step one. I believe for reasons I have explained that our proposal makes much more sense in terms of getting some help to people. If we are going to call it emergency assistance--and that is what it is--then we better get some assistance to people who are devastated because of the drought. We better have disaster relief in a bill which purports to be an emergency assistance package. Second, we ought to try and make sure the benefits go to the people who need it the most. Finally, I say to my friends on the other side, I don't believe anybody should have to stand up and say the Freedom to Farm bill was a ``freedom to fail.'' I don't care whether people have to admit to a past mistake. I don't want anybody to believe they have to admit to a past mistake. But we better change the policy. However we do it, whatever Senators want to say, my focus is on the failed policy--not of the past but of the failed policy of the present. My focus is on this ``freedom to fail'' bill. We have to take the cap off the loan rate, raise the loan rate. We have to get a decent price. We have to target it and have a much tougher and fair trade policy. We have to make sure we have some conservation practices. We have to make sure we don't have people planting fence row to fence row. We have to make sure we take antitrust action seriously. Teddy Roosevelt was for antitrust action a long time ago. It seems to me that the United States Senate can go on record to support antitrust action. It seems to me we can be on the side of family farmers. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I know. I am going to do it next time for sure. Let me ask one more question, and before I do, I ask unanimous consent--if tomorrow morning we are going to be in debate as well--that I could have 15 minutes to speak on this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was asking whether or not tomorrow morning we are also going to be in debate on this and that I could have 15 minutes to speak on it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, every time I'm home, farmers are saying to me: We appreciate some assistance so we can live to be able to farm another day, but we want to know whether we or our children or grandchildren will have any future? How are you going to deal with the price crisis? What are you going to do to change the direction that this freedom to farm bill has taken us? Farmers focus on the structural issues. They want Members to write a new farm bill. They don't want a bail out every year. They want to be able to get a decent price in the marketplace. They want a fair shake. That is all they want. I ask my colleague from Iowa, also my friend from North Dakota, what should we be focusing on here in the U.S. Senate beyond this emergency assistance package to make sure that farmers can get a decent price, and that family farmers can be able to make a living and their children can farm and our rural communities can flourish?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will say to my colleagues--and I know they are waiting to speak, and I will soon be done after just a final question-- I apologize you have to wait. I especially say that to Senator Grassley since he was gracious enough, when I was in Iowa, to tell me if I needed a place to stay, I could stay at his farm. I much appreciated it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. OK. Let me ask my colleague: My friend from North Dakota made the distinction between agriculture and family farmers; his passion is for the producers, the family farmers. Beyond this assistance bill, we would like to see something that would help people continue to survive. In Minnesota, on August 21, we are going to have a Rural Crisis Unity Day with a whole congressional delegation there to meet with the farmers and business people and all, really, of rural Minnesota. Does he think it would be helpful for people to say: We need you to do something about the price crisis; we need you to do something to make sure we get a fair shake; we need you to make sure it is not just for Cargill, it is for family farmers; it is not just for IBP or the packers--it is not for the packers, it is for the producers? Do you think this is the kind of thing we are going to need to see in many of our agricultural States over the next several months to come, to put the pressure on the House and Senate to pass a bill for family farmers as opposed to these big conglomerates?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to speak for a brief period of time in morning business. I see the Senator from Mississippi is coming into the Chamber. I know we are ready to start with the Ag appropriations bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to very briefly speak to an issue that actually might be one we will debate as we go through this Ag appropriations bill since part of what we deal with within the Department of Agriculture is food assistance programs such as the Women, Infants, and Children Program and the Food Stamp Program. We have heard a great deal from the White House and from some Members of Congress about the success of the welfare bill. On Sunday, the White House released data on the number of women who were on welfare and are now working. There will be a gathering in Chicago tomorrow, I believe, where the President will be talking about welfare to work and talking about the success of this. As a Senator, I want to raise a couple of questions that I think are important and to focus on some unpleasant facts that we should be willing to face up to. First of all, I point out for my colleagues the fact that the welfare rolls are down 40 percent begs the question of whether or not we have reduced poverty. The fact of the matter is, the welfare rolls are down 40 percent, but poverty is barely down. The goal was not to reduce the welfare rolls; the goal everybody talked about was to move families from poverty to economic independence. That is really what the goal was all about. The issue has never been welfare; the issue has been poverty. The question is, How do you reduce the poverty? I do not quite understand how the White House or any Democrat or any Republican can proclaim this a success when we have done so little to reduce poverty in our country, especially poverty of children. There are about 14 million people who are poor in the country. My second point is, when the President and the White House talk about the number of mothers who are now working, that begs the question as to what kind of jobs and what kind of wages. What we should be talking about are family-wage or living-wage jobs. The evidence we have right now is that most of the mothers who are working are working in jobs with wages somewhere between about $5.50 and $7 an hour, which is barely above minimum wage but does not enable these families to escape poverty. My third point is, Families USA just came out with a study that points out there are about 675,000 low-income citizens who have now been cut off medical assistance because of the welfare bill. There are about 675,000 low-income citizens who no longer are receiving any medical assistance. My final point is, there was a Wall Street Journal piece today about the dramatic, precipitous decline of participation in the Food Stamp Program. I argue especially the decline of participation among children which cannot be explained alone by the state of the economy, especially with the dramatic increase in the use of food shelf service. What is going on? Do we have a situation now where the AFDC structure is no longer there, and when people come in, no one tells them about the fact they and their families are eligible for food stamps--that is happening--or they are not told they are eligible for medical assistance--that is happening--all of which leads me to two final things today as we move into this debate about the Agriculture appropriations bill. First, I lost by one vote on a welfare tracking amendment, and then the Senate adopted it on the Treasury-Postal bill. It is now in conference committee. The amendment called upon the States, when they apply for the $1 billion bonus money, to present to Health and Human Services the data on what kind of jobs women have, whether or not they and their children are participating in food stamps and do the families have medical assistance, so we can find out if families are better off or worse off. That is now in conference. If that gets taken out of conference committee--amendments are adopted in the Senate and taken out in conference committee--I am going to bring that amendment back up on this bill, and we are going to have a vote because sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know, and sometimes we only know what we want to know. That is the way it is with the White House about this welfare bill. We ought to be engaged in an honest policy evaluation to find out what is happening in the country. We are talking about poor women and poor children, and we ought to know whether they are better off or whether they are worse off. There is some disturbing evidence that many of these families might, in fact, be worse off. It is a little early and premature for the White House to be declaring this a success or for any Senator or Representative, Democrat or Republican, to be declaring it a success. My final point is, since we are dealing with an Ag appropriations bill--and I think I will have an amendment to this effect--we need to call on USDA, or someone, to do a study and to report back to the Senate and to the Congress in a relatively brief period of time, as soon as possible, what is happening with the Food Stamp Program in this country. We need to know. There was a dramatic piece in the Washington Post about 2 weeks ago. I could hardly bear to read it. It was the front page of the B section. It was a picture of an 8-year-old child, a little boy. The whole piece was devoted to hungry children in the District of Columbia. The gist of the article was that in August--now--the summer schools are going to shut down and the breakfasts will not be there, the School Lunch Program will not be there, and there is no food at home. In this particular family, this grandmother with four children does not have enough money to feed her children. What I want to know is, whatever happened to the Food Stamp Program? That has been our safety net program. What is going on when we have a dramatic rise in the use of food shelves and food pantries in this country? The Catholic Church network study pointed this out just last month. What is going on when 675,000 low-income people are removed from medical assistance as a result of the welfare bill? What is going on when the vast majority of these women are working at jobs that still do not get them and their families out of poverty? What is going on when we are unwilling to do an honest policy evaluation of this legislation, because very soon in many States there will be a drop-dead date certain, and all families, all women, and all children will be cut off from any welfare assistance at all. Before that happens, we need to know what is happening with this legislation. I have come to the floor of the Senate today to basically challenge my colleagues to make sure this stays in the conference committee and to announce I will be out here on the floor with an amendment if it gets eliminated from the conference committee, and to announce we ought to also have a study of the Food Stamp Program to find out why it is not reaching children and families who need the help, and also to directly challenge the White House and the President. It is not enough to say we have cut the rolls by 40 percent. The question is, Have we reduced the poverty by 40 percent? We have not. It is not enough to say these mothers are now working. The question is, Are they working jobs that will enable them and their children to no longer be poor in our country? That is the goal which I do not believe has been met. We are talking about the lives of poor women and poor children. They deserve to be on our radar screen. They deserve an honest, rigorous policy evaluation so that we, as decisionmakers, know whether or not, by our actions, we are helping these women and children or whether or not we are hurting these women and children. We ought to have the courage to step up to the plate. I think we are about ready to start on the Ag appropriations bill. I will yield the floor. I look forward to this debate. I came down here on the floor to debate this bill. This is the crisis that is staring my State of Minnesota in the face. I am going to leave it up to Senator Harkin or Senator Daschle to start out debate on our side, but I am very anxious to be in this debate and very anxious to speak for farmers and for agriculture. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I have a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I actually have three quick questions. First of all, dealing with the urgency of now, is it not true that the Senator from Iowa and other Democrat Senators have tried to pass an emergency assistance package and we have been working on this for some time? Would the Senator from Iowa give a little bit of a historical background? I think farmers are wondering how much more has to happen to them before there is some assistance.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I might ask my colleague from Iowa a second question to be clear about what is at stake--we will all have a chance to speak later. My colleague from Iowa says that what the Senator from Mississippi introduces is an emergency assistance package for farmers to try to get some income out there to families, and my colleague says it does about half the job.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Where are the gaps? In other words, I think people assume, if we pass something that we say is going to enable them to continue to stay on the farm until we deal with the structural problems, it is going to help them. Again, could the Senator emphasize the difference?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is all about whether or not we support children in our country. It is a terribly important program. We will vote it up or down on a voice vote. On the ag appropriations bill we will have a recorded vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I call up my motion to recommit on veterans' health care.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduce this motion with Senator Johnson, Senator Daschle, and Senator Harkin. This motion calls for $3 billion added to veterans' health care. That is consistent with what the Veterans' Affairs Committee has said we need to do. That is consistent with the veterans independent budget. That is consistent with the report we did last week on the gaps in veterans' health care, and every single Senator voted on the budget resolution for a $3 billion increase for veterans' health care. That is the least we should do to make sure there is high-quality health care for veterans in our country.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Mr. President, I was listening to my colleague, Senator Breaux from Louisiana, and I want to respond to what he said because he said it-- like he says everything--very well, regarding the whole question of reality tests and good politics versus good policy. I speak against this amendment, not for the sake of good politics but for the sake of good policy. I speak against this amendment understanding that reality test, as I think about the lives of people in our country. I want to say one more time on the floor of the Senate--and I have said it a couple of times--that I do not understand this kind of bidding war on tax cuts. I understand very targeted tax cuts to those citizens who need it the most. I understand very targeted tax cuts that speak to the concerns and circumstances of hard-pressed working families. But I think the vast majority of people in the United States of America--and I think this is the meaning of the poll about tax cuts--are saying this: You all are sort of--I don't know what the word is--trying to pander to us and you have this argument that you have made for years--I am not saying all colleagues for this amendment have made this argument for years, but it goes something such as this: This money belongs to the people, and we are going to give it back to you, whatever there is in surpluses, which, of course, is all based upon assumptions we make. And, hopefully, these assumptions will be borne out about economic performance. I really think the vast majority of people in Minnesota and the vast majority of people in the country are saying this belongs not to us but to our children and grandchildren, and whatever you have by way of surpluses--now we are focusing on the non-Social Security surplus--put it into reducing the debt to get the debt off the backs of our children. Make sure there will be Social Security and Medicare for our children and our grandchildren as it has been there for us; and, finally, make sure that our children and grandchildren are going to have the same opportunities we have. We can't do that. I came to the floor the other day and said about my own party's proposal at $300 billion--$200 billion less than $500 billion--that we can't do all of that and have these tax cuts to the tune of $500 billion at the same time. It doesn't add up. To use the old Yiddish proverb, ``You can't dance at two weddings at the same time.'' If you look at the non-Social Security surplus, three-quarters of it is based upon cuts or the caps in domestic spending. We say we are concerned about veterans' health care, we want to have community policing, we want to have environmental cleanup, we certainly want to make sure we deal with what is becoming a crisis of affordable housing, and then all of us are forever and ever and ever talking about children and education. We talk about all those people who do not have any health insurance. We talk about prescription drug benefits for the elderly. How are we going to do all of that at the same time that we are going to have $500 billion of tax cuts? We are not. With the Democratic proposal the other day on the floor with $300 billion of tax cuts, we were still several hundred billion dollars under where the caps take us. In other words, we were several hundred billion dollars--I think close to $300 billion--short of making up the cuts in discretionary spending. With the $500 billion it is worse. I want to know where the give is going to be. In all due respect, as I look at the pattern of our powerlessness in America today, it is a very distorted pattern of power. I know the Pentagon will get its resources. I know we will make sure that we invest in transportation. I can just imagine with the squeeze on--that is exactly what you are going to have, deep cuts in discretionary spending for a decade, and then God knows where this takes us in the next decade--what is going to be cut. We are going to go from 1 percent Head Start funding--pre-3-year- olds, Early Head Start funding--to less than 1 percent. We are going to go from 40 percent, or a little over 40-percent funding for Head Start, ages 2 to 5, to less than 40 percent. We are going to go from barely covering 20 percent of affordable child care needs for low-income families--much less moderate income and much less working families--to less than 20 percent. That is the problem with this amendment. My colleague from Louisiana said it is a compromise. It is a reality test. It is a compromise between the political center of gravity of where Republicans are and where Democrats are, but it is not based upon where I think the political center of gravity is in the country. I know that sounds presumptuous. Maybe it even sounds arrogant. I swear that I don't mean it to be. But I really believe the vast majority of people in our country are for tax cuts that are very targeted, that speak to the concerns and circumstances of really hard-pressed families, and they want to see the rest of us deal with Medicare. They want to make sure we have Social Security, and people want to see some investment in our children. They want to see opportunities for children in this country. We can't do it with this. We have several hundred billion dollars more--well over $300 billion more--of cuts in discretionary spending if we go for their $500 billion package. Where are we going to cut? You mean to tell me that now we are putting a straitjacket on ourselves and boxing ourselves in such a way that we are not even going to be able to make any of these kinds of investments in health, skills, intellect, and character of our children? We are not going to be able to it. I don't see this as being any kind of reality test amendment. I think this is not at all based upon where most people in the country are. I don't think it is based upon what we have to do as a nation. I think in the next century we have to grow together. I think in the next century, by the year 2030 or 2040 or 2050, we have to make sure the next century belongs to our children and our grandchildren. We have to make sure they get the best education. We have to make sure they have the best skill development. We have to make sure they are healthy. We have to make sure they are productive. We have to make sure there is less violence in their lives; that they grow up to be independent, resourceful, self-reliant, morally responsible and democratic citizens. That is what we ought to be doing with whatever kind of surplus we have. We certainly shouldn't be supporting a proposal with $500 billion of tax cuts that will crowd out all of that investment, especially when it comes to the most vulnerable citizens in our country. I hope this amendment will be voted down. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes. I will try to cut that in half in the interest of moving this along. I cannot believe the amendment that is before this body. I am speaking about the Gramm amendment. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities does very good work, as does Citizens for Tax Justice. Let's take the 10-percent tax rate cut across the board: this is what they say. 60 percent of the benefits of this tax cut will go to 10 percent of the taxpayers with the highest income. The bottom 60 percent of all taxpayers will share just over 9 percent of the total benefits under this plan. The average tax cut under the Gramm amendment, for the lowest income, 60 percent of all taxpayers, those with incomes below $38,000, will be about $99. By contrast, those in the top 10 percent will enjoy an average tax cut of about $4,000. Tax cuts for the 1 percent highest income, those making more than $300,000 a year, will average $20,000 a year. I am not even talking about estate and capital gains tax cuts, which make the Gramm amendment even more regressive. To pick up on the comments of my colleague from South Carolina, the original House Ways and Means Committee proposal in the second 10 years would explode the debt, costing $2.8 trillion. This may be only $2 trillion. But even here, $2 trillion is a lot of money. From 2010 to 2019, this tax cut package in the Gramm amendment will probably cost about $2 trillion. That is what it will cost us. Mr. President, Kevin Phillips, in some commentary the other day on ``Morning Edition,'' talked about the House proposal. I think what he said applies to this Gramm amendment: The mind-boggling 10-year cuts passed late last week by the House of Representatives . . . deserve a new term: [Not pie in the sky but] pie in the stratosphere. That is what this Gramm amendment is: pie in the stratosphere. Sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and I say this with a twinkle in my eye, it is never hatred; we always enjoy our work--they will accuse some of us of class warfare. I say to my colleague from Texas, this is class warfare. This is class warfare: 60 percent of the benefits go to the top 10 percent of all taxpayers. The bottom 60 percent gets 9 percent. The average tax cut for most of the people in my State of Minnesota is about $99. But if you make over $300,000 a year, there will be an average tax cut of $20,000 a year. I say to my colleague from Texas, this is class warfare. That is what his amendment is. In some ways, I am glad to fight this war because the vast majority of people in this country, when they realize who gets the benefits and who does not, when they realize what this amendment does in the second 10 years, here is what they are going to say. They are going to say: We heard enough about how this surplus belongs to us. We are responsible adults. We are responsible parents and grandparents, and we believe that whatever the performance of our economy--and I hope it will be good; we do not know, this is all assumed--and whatever we have by way of surplus, here is what we believe: We believe that it does not belong to us; it belongs to our children and our grandchildren. That means we pay off some of the debt we put on their shoulders, and that means we also make sure that Medicare and Social Security are there for them. It also means our children and our grandchildren, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, have opportunities; that there is equal opportunity for every child. That is what the American people believe. That is what Minnesotans believe. I love this Gramm amendment. I love it because I think it presents in the clearest possible way to people in Minnesota and people in the country what we are about, whose side we are on. It is a class warfare amendment, and it should be trounced in a vote. I yield the floor.